more on illegal download

[broegaard]

Dutch Get “Piracy Levy” for Tablets, Phones, Laptops and USB-Drives



As in many other countries around the world, downloading music and movies is hugely popular in the Netherlands.

A massive 30% of the population is said to do so.

Presently, the Dutch see downloading and copying movies and music for personal use as “fair use” and not punishable by law.

In return, copyright holders are compensated through a “piracy levy” on blank media such as CDr’s and writable DVDs.

Starting next year, this levy will also apply to other media storage devices such as tablets, smartphones, USB-drives, PCs and Laptops


iPod’s to be levied

ipod pirate bay

The money that’s collected, up to 5 euro per device, will be distributed to copyright holders.

The good news is that the levies on cassettes, minidiscs and video tapes have been abolished, because these are rarely used anymore.

An overview of the levied media and the applicable rates is available below.

—–

Cd-R
€ 0,03

DVD
€ 0,03

External Hard Drive
€ 1,00

Audio-/Video player
< 2 Gb € 1,00
> 2 Gb € 2,00

HDD Recorder/Settopbox
< 160 Gb € 2,50
> 160 Gb € 5,00

Phone with Mp3-player/Smartphone
< 16 Gb € 2,50
? 16 Gb € 5,00

Tablet
< 8 Gb € 2,50
> 8 Gb € 5,00

PC/Laptop
€ 5,00

 

[SkiBumMSP]

Whenever I see something like this, it always begs the question.... Just how much of those fees will the actual artist actually see?

 

[PureXul]

Whenever I see something like this, it always begs the question.... Just how much of those fees will the actual artist actually see?

Under the tax on music CDRs and CD recorders, the RIAA is supposed to distribute 60% to the labels and 40% to artists. However, it's believed that artists never see a dime of that money. Proving that would obviously require the RIAA to open their books to outside scrutiny, but it's reasonably obvious that it's simply an alternative revenue stream for the RIAA and its constituent labels, rather than a real deterrent or levy on illegal downloading.

No idea on how it works in Europe, but that's the situation in America.

 

[Sumeet]

Whenever I see something like this, it always begs the question.... Just how much of those fees will the actual artist actually see?

That's only a question worth asking if you think the people who brought about this kind of public theft have any interest in the actual artists.

 

[seh750]

Doesn't this almost encourage "illegal" downloading? If one were inclined to download other people's work already it seems this model would remove any small sense of remorse or guilt that might get one to actually purchase the product - ah, well, the artist/label will get some money anyway.

And since I legally purchased all the music that I loaded on my iPod, why should I have to pay a tax on the iPod to pay for those who are stealing?

That concept seems very similar to uninsured motorists insurance rules. Here in Oregon, and I believe most states, insurance is required to drive a car on public roads. But we also are required to buy insurance to pay for damage caused by uninsured individuals. I have to pay extra because others are breaking the law. What sense does that make?

Finally, if you tax media such as CD-Rs, doesn't that in a small way hurt artists who might be producing their own CDs at home to sell at shows? Some up and coming act working their ass off to get noticed would essentially be giving a small amount of their very limited revenue stream to Lady Gaga's label? That hardly seems fair either.

As an independent software developer I sometimes purchase CD-Rs to distribute my work. Why should Microsoft or any other software company get anything from that CD-R that contains 100% my work?


I'm all for recognizing the changing times, but this approach seems hugely unfair to me.

 

[adaher]

Yeah, but in that regard it's a bit like expecting abstinence from sex. If 30% of people admit to downloading, then you've got a problem that's too widespread to be dealt with through enforcement. Heck, crimes regularly committed by 5% of the population(like smoking pot) are virtually unenforceable. So if an alternative model can be come up with to pay artists for their work, it's win-win for everyone.

Although I think a better approach would be to tax bandwidth usage. Right now the focus is on torrents, but there are so many ways to listen to music or watch movies or TV illegally, and the only thing they all have in common is that they hog bandwidth. So a better approach would be to have a consumer tax on bandwidth usage since we can assume that a lot of that bandwidth usage is for illegal activity. That has the virtue of taking the onus off the user to figure out if the site streaming are on is legal.

 

[broegaard]

Yeah, but in that regard it's a bit like expecting abstinence from sex. If 30% of people admit to downloading, then you've got a problem that's too widespread to be dealt with through enforcement. Heck, crimes regularly committed by 5% of the population(like smoking pot) are virtually unenforceable. So if an alternative model can be come up with to pay artists for their work, it's win-win for everyone.

Although I think a better approach would be to tax bandwidth usage. Right now the focus is on torrents, but there are so many ways to listen to music or watch movies or TV illegally, and the only thing they all have in common is that they hog bandwidth. So a better approach would be to have a consumer tax on bandwidth usage since we can assume that a lot of that bandwidth usage is for illegal activity. That has the virtue of taking the onus off the user to figure out if the site streaming are on is legal.

interesting....

 

[VenomGA]

Yeah, but in that regard it's a bit like expecting abstinence from sex. If 30% of people admit to downloading, then you've got a problem that's too widespread to be dealt with through enforcement. Heck, crimes regularly committed by 5% of the population(like smoking pot) are virtually unenforceable. So if an alternative model can be come up with to pay artists for their work, it's win-win for everyone.

Although I think a better approach would be to tax bandwidth usage. Right now the focus is on torrents, but there are so many ways to listen to music or watch movies or TV illegally, and the only thing they all have in common is that they hog bandwidth. So a better approach would be to have a consumer tax on bandwidth usage since we can assume that a lot of that bandwidth usage is for illegal activity. That has the virtue of taking the onus off the user to figure out if the site streaming are on is legal.

what about those who play online games???

 

[Magius]

Yeah, but in that regard it's a bit like expecting abstinence from sex. If 30% of people admit to downloading, then you've got a problem that's too widespread to be dealt with through enforcement. Heck, crimes regularly committed by 5% of the population(like smoking pot) are virtually unenforceable. So if an alternative model can be come up with to pay artists for their work, it's win-win for everyone.

Everyone?
How is this a win for legitimate music consumers who also use blank media, usb drives, iPods, and smart phones?
How is this a win for companies who use tons of those things, but don't consume music at all?
No doubt they will pass those cost on to customers, so really the public gets to pay that tax for them. If you use media you get to pay your penalty and theirs. Yay.

Not to mention that artist and labels unaffiliated with RIAA get nothing. As if only RIAA material is illegally downloaded.

The only winner here is the RIAA.

Although I think a better approach would be to tax bandwidth usage. Right now the focus is on torrents, but there are so many ways to listen to music or watch movies or TV illegally, and the only thing they all have in common is that they hog bandwidth. So a better approach would be to have a consumer tax on bandwidth usage since we can assume that a lot of that bandwidth usage is for illegal activity. That has the virtue of taking the onus off the user to figure out if the site streaming are on is legal.

Define " a lot of bandwidth" if you would. I'm inclined to think that considering the amount of business, communication, and commerce on the internet, illegal downloading bandwidth is microscopic in comparison.

And Vanom has a valid point. Gamers and Netflix subscribers use a lot of bandwidth, even if they don't listen to music buy and large. These people should pay the RIAA anyway?
I think not.

Enough of our taxes are completely wasted. Now it'a win-win for us to pay a special tax to line a corporation's pockets?

Fuck that.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

That's only a question worth asking if you think the people who brought about this kind of public theft have any interest in the actual artists.

I do ask that question because I want to know if the money that I would be forced to pay into this crap for buying an external hard drive, even though it is only for data backup on my server, is actually going to the actual artists, as it is being claimed. I don't engage in illegal download, so why should I have to pay for those that do? And since it appears that I would have to pay, then I want to know if indeed that money is going where it is claimed to be for (and not just making some RIAA or major label executive even richer).

But hey, if I had to pay $5 extra that new iPod, whats it to say that I should just say "Fuck it! I am going to download my $5 worth of music that I already 'paid for'!"? That is just about what this is going to pretty much end up encouraging.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I'm not being snide when I ask this question, but why is everyone talking about the RIAA in this thread when the post is about The Netherlands? The RIAA is an American organization and does not oversee Dutch music sales.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

I'm not being snide when I ask this question, but why is everyone talking about the RIAA in this thread when the post is about The Netherlands? The RIAA is an American organization and does not oversee Dutch music sales.

I know the original point of this thread was reference to a Dutch law, but it is not far fetched for the RIAA to try to get something like this pushed through here (didn't they try during the early days of the iPod? Hell they sued Diamond Multimedia to try to block sales of the Rio MP3 player! We all know how that turned out!) Hell, they already did with the AHRA, and this is pretty much the Dutch doing the same thing, but now also including more "modern" media, such as MP3 players, external hard drives, etc. Not only that, people often use 'RIAA' as a generic term for the country's equivalent of a recording industry association.